And the most radioactive site in New York City award is...an auto repair shop??

Hello Friends,

I came across this article that includes a video about the third super-fund site listed in New York City, and it's a auto repair shop.

The Wolff-Alport Chemical Company used the site to extract rare earth metals from monazite sand in the 40's and 50's. A waste bi-product , Thorium (Th) would be dumped down the sewers throughout this process, There are many interesting points/questions to cull from this report, a few of mine below:

1. I don't believe that this is the most radioactive site in NYC, just the one that the EPA decides to make us aware of. How many more of these sites exist? How about your own town, city, or state?

2. The EPA regional administrator became concerned when a field report stated that due to the amount of rads, occupants should not lay on their back on the floor, but also said there is no danger to the occupants health? I understand that the equivalent of 30 x-rays a day may not kill you right away, but isn't exposure cumulative?

3. Who should pay for the cleanup of this, and other sites like it when they cannot find the responsible parties? They have known about it for decades, and in fact, the gov't found out they were dumping thorium right into the sewer. Their idea of making the operation safer was "Hey, stop throwing nuclear waste into the local waters, we want to buy it from you!". Should they not be responsible?

4. The EPA felt it is dangerous enough to make a lead sandwich on the area sidewalks with 2" of lead between two, 2" pieces of steel, but how about inside the businesses?

So, how about it ATS:
- Does the EPA know, and intentionally ignore, other sites like this?
- Do you think lobbying plays a role in buying the EPA's "ignorance"? Any proof of this?
- Would you continue to work or run a business on this site after this evidence was uncovered?

And the kicker:
- Is it possible that the EPA "uncovered" this particular site because this part of the map is NYC's next hot real estate zone in the future?

See the article here:

Most Radioactive site in NYC

a reply to: Arktos1

- Is it possible that the EPA "uncovered" this particular site because this part of the map is NYC's next hot real estate zone in the future?

It is weird for such a sight to be chosen when sooo many others surely qualify....hmmm, could you be right that money is driving an agenda?!?! Shocking, I wish...status quo, unfortunately.

Ridgewood, Queens, is emerging as a 'next big thing' for creatives types priced out of Brooklyn

www.nydailynews.com...

a reply to: Arktos1

There are places like this all over. One house we lived in in Oshawa, Ontario had an open unstructured/natural park area behind it. The local government in their infinite wisdom decided to turn it into a baseball diamond and proper children's park without checking the land history first. The trucks and graders moved in and then the water started to smell strange, metallic almost. Seeing a possible connection between weird water and construction I decided to investigate and found out that the site had been used as a landfill a while back before all the subdivisions were built. So I dug a little deeper in the records to find out what kind of landfill, eg., normal garbage, chemicals, etc.

To my surprise, I found out they dumped radioactive waste. So I walked the park in the evening and found radioactive areas, not terribly high, but about 10 times normal background radiation levels. I walked back and forth twice and mapped the areas of highest radiation and from what I could surmise at the time, the dump trucks and graders broke open the buried claytop, they created a crack about 17 yards long and maybe a yard wide at the widest point.

I contacted Oshawa City public works and they told me they had no record of what was in the landfill, so I contacted Ontario Hydro and they would not comment, they said they were not in a position to confirm nor deny past activity at the site. No none was prepared to take responsibility for the clean up or replace the claytop, they would not even investigate (and I had credibility as I was working with the NRC at the time and I had the radiation detectors).

The city continued to build the kid's park and we gave our notice and moved. The moral of the story is that just because governments allow corporations to put people in harm's way, doesn't mean they are going to be responsible, transparent or fix the problems they create. Might as well bury your head in the radioactive sand like the rest of them or leave.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Arktos1
- Does the EPA know, and intentionally ignore, other sites like this?

I think, just like any governmental body, there are always moneyed interests guiding the information and action of these departments. It would not surprise me if such information was leaked about certain sites when it benefits someone, and others are hushed up to prevent lawsuits and public anger.

originally posted by: Arktos1
- Do you think lobbying plays a role in buying the EPA's "ignorance"? Any proof of this?

My gut is that most departments are corrupted in one way or another. It's the very nature of business. You have a friend in a department and you ask them "off the record" about something, they help you out, then a year later you help them out... I would find it remarkable if there wasn't some of this going on.

originally posted by: Arktos1
- Would you continue to work or run a business on this site after this evidence was uncovered?

Every situation is different. If you have millions invested and risk losing your business, and the threat to health is so low, then why would you risk things for no reason? I would have independent people looking into this though, and I definitely wouldn't trust any biased agency to tell me the truth.

originally posted by: Arktos1
- Is it possible that the EPA "uncovered" this particular site because this part of the map is NYC's next hot real estate zone in the future?

As I said, I believe there are always corrupt deals going on behind the closed doors of agencies. It's not a stretch of the imagination to consider that some rich developer could have called them up knowing the history of the location, knowing that the price of that land would likely drop significantly once it was discovered.

There are uses for land like this, things that others might not have faith in. For instance, a public building, hotel or event space would be a likely option, given that long-term exposure is the biggest issue and such buildings are used sporadically by individuals occasionally. You wouldn't put a school, a hospital or houses on that land, but you could build an apartment building with a vacant ground floor.

If I wanted to build a high-rise office building on a site like that, and I knew that a competitor wanted to build houses on it, it would go in my favor to have this news out there, rendering their plans obsolete and lowering the price significantly.

It's just like the government to cause a problem, deny responsibility and then put a band-aid on it (the cheapest one they can find).

They encouraged the toxic businesses, issued them a license and the permits, then if they happen to accidentally notice they are illegally polluting, they looked the other way or charged the polluters some minimum fines until they were sold, merged or went out of business.

Then, after 20 or 30 years go by they act like they were totally unaware of what toxins were dumped and who was responsible. Of course ultimately the government was responsible in the first place or the businesses would have been polluting some place else.

If there is a problem in the states, you can trace the blame back to government in most cases.

I worked for the largest land owner in Toronto at one time
he owned commercial space where a tenant, a metal plating concern had gone bankrupt
all sorts of lovely toxic stuff was left behind
it was dumped in snow banks and storm sewers all over town
saved a half a million on the "clean up"

money doesn't give a ****